I agree. You SHOULD be sorry to disagree. The "fine print" came out before anyone got one only because people kept badgering BN to answer the question with more than a quote of the vague FAQ "answer".

You are absolutely correct, however, that in this country (and I arrogantly assume the U.S., cuz that's where I am) that the standard is what any reasonable person would expect. I am a reasonable person, and I suspect many of the people in MB are reasonable people.

I fully expected something along the lines that you could loan a book out more than once to more than one person, but only to one person at a time. If we then found it was limited to twice, we would have been a little disappointed that it wasn't more, but not overly disturbed and the thread would have been shorter.

If we had found it was limited to 3 times, this thread would have been a LOT shorter -- and filled mostly with people saying, "No big deal. 3 times is more than enuff. Most paperbacks don't last thru many more than that many reads."

We ARE smart enuff to realize after a little thot that infinite loans would be an unreasonable expectation. We are also smart enuff to recognize when an advertiser tried to pull the wool over our eyes and it didn't work.

And all we are saying now is that if BN had included "limited" in their advertising, there may have been some grumbling about HOW limited, but not 68 posts (69 now that I have posted this one, and 70 when you answer to tell me I am still wrong IYO).

That's okay, I still gave you Karma points cuz your post gave me a chance to up my post count.

I want to say one thing first. While writing on the Internet is a great way to communicate, it does has its problems. The biggest is that it is hard to sometimes get the feeling of person speaking. So I want to make sure everyone knows I am not calling anyone unreasonable or stupid.

The reasonable person test is used partly because all of us can become unreasonable about about a specific topic at times. Each and every person in the world has opinions that we can develop that makes great sense to us and maybe a few others, but don't make sense to most people. So they are looking at what they think the common adult would think.

In this case, I think that most people would agree with me. Of course, I could be wrong.

You said: "We ARE smart enuff to realize after a little thot that infinite loans would be an unreasonable expectation." To me that proves my argument that a reasonable person would realize that there has to be limits on it. Therefore there is no reason to have the word limited loaning; because you already know that part. It is the same thing to me as DirecTV saying in their ads that all you need is their service to get the best in enertainment. We already know that you still need the TV so there is no reason to mention that.

Of course these are my OPINIONS. Also, again I would like to point out that I have not meant to insult anyone in comments. If anyone has been offended, I ask for your forgiveness.